Can the WHO Eradicate the Disease of Death?

Death is a non-communicable disease. In the UK, death occurs about 450,000 times per year. Something must be done to stop it.

There is no need for religion since there would be no need for a ‘hereafter’ if no one died. No one will die if the disease of death was eliminated. It really is very simple, as the UN, the WHO. the EU, the BMA and sundry other organisations say. All that is required is to stop people doing things which result in non-communicable diseases which cause death. No one will get old and die provided that they stop doing things which cause these non-communicable diseases. It is possible for a person to live a life free from external death threats, such as smoking and drinking and eating unhealthy food. If people obey, then they will live for yonks and yonks, without a termination date applying. But statistics show that there are still ‘other problems’ which need to be addressed. For example, not all causes of non-communicable diseases are easy to see. Lots of studies have indicated that ‘the environment’ has a big effect. There is far too much dust and stuff in the atmosphere, as well as carbon dioxide. There is no doubt that, if a person breaths an atmosphere of pure carbon dioxide, that person will peg out pronto. So, it is simple to calculate the statistical probability that, somehow or other, tiny amounts of CO2 will coagulate and a person somewhere will breath in that pure, coagulated CO2 and expire. Obvious, isn’t it? After all, studies have shown that SHS coagulates and poisons unknown individuals here and there. It happens all the time, here and there. It has been calculated that SHS coagulations polish off 100,000 people per an. Or 5,000 or 500,000. The numbers don’t matter since the whole population of the world would live for ever if only all these causes of non-communicable disease could were removed.

But it must be admitted that there are minor genetic problems which also cause the non-communicable disease of death. These problems are very worrying, but we in public health just know that they can be overcome. They are not nearly as worrying as dust and tobacco smoke and CO2 in the atmosphere.

Thankfully, we have wonderful benefactors who are helping us to overcome these worries. The Directors of Big Pharma companies are particularly altruistic. They have told us, again and again, that there is no need to worry. It might take some time, but when we get rid of SHS, alcohol smells and sugar temptations, it will be easy to identify and correct the simple genetic stuff. Of course, although the genetic stuff is simple, it will be rather expensive to correct. But, not to worry, the first people to be treated will be those of most value to the human race – academics in particular will be targeted for ‘extended longevity treatment’ (ELT). These people will be applauded for their self-sacrifice, and will be known as “THE BETTER SORTE”.

In the meantime, we must militate against any of these very worrying newfangled, self-help things like e-cigs. Despite the fact that the stuff inside them (propylene glycol) was tested donkeys years ago, and found to be perfectly OK to breath constantly, even for little children, and was a potent atmospheric disinfectant, we amateurs do not know, and it is very worrying. It is very worrying because we amateurs are ignorant of the facts. (Besides, who needs actual, real scientists?)

======

Clearly, we must press on. There is no need to postulate an afterlife. All of us can have LIFE-EVERLASTING, if only we would trust our angels in Big Pharma and eliminate the devils in Big Tobacco, Big Sugar, Big Salt, Big Automobile, Big Electricity, Big Government, Big Architecture, Big Oil, Big Pharma ….. Oops! Delete the last.

Erm…. There is a slight problem. What will happen to the population of the world is all non-communicable diseases are eliminated and THE BETTER SORTE live for ever? `No, there is nothing to worry about. Come the day and the hour, smoking and drinking will be encouraged.

After all, we cannot have the world populated by ignorant serfs, can we?

 

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Can the WHO Eradicate the Disease of Death?”

  1. Rose Says:

    Can the WHO Eradicate the Disease of Death?

    What a hideous thought! Like something off Star Trek.
    Wizened former Director Generals of the WHO, thousands of years old sitting forever in conclave.

    *Shivers

  2. Rose Says:

    Thanks to the ghastly vision you conjured I had another thought, it seems it wasn’t just Gro Harlem Bruntland and the Partnership Project that delivered us into the hands of Pharma as I’d previously thought.

    You have often remarked that all anti-tobacco seems to want is legislation, whether it is likely to work or not.

    This could be why.

    GENESIS OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION

    “The idea of an international convention for tobacco control was born at a July 1993 meeting at the UCLA Faculty Center of Ruth Roemer, author of Legislative Action to Combat the World Tobacco Epidemic, Milton I. Roemer, professor emeritus, UCLA School of Public Health, and Allyn L. Taylor, then a visiting professor, Whittier University School of School of Law.

    Impressed by an article by Taylor in the American Journal of Law and Medicine in which she had advocated that WHO utilize its neglected constitutional authority to promote the development and implementation of international law to advance global public health, Ruth Roemer suggested to her the possibility of applying her ideas to develop a specific international regulatory mechanism for tobacco control, a field in which WHO had a strong, established policy (letter from Ruth Roemer to Allyn Taylor, August 18, 1993).”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449287/

    Ruth Roemer

    “Using the law to promote public health objectives guided her over the next four decades.

    “During the last two decades, Roemer concentrated on reducing tobacco use globally. “She thought tobacco use was an epidemic,” her son, John, said in an interview Thursday. “But it was a relatively easy thing to change and would have a massive effect on people’s health.”

    Roemer herself had been a heavy cigarette smoker, until her husband persuaded her to stop in 1961. She switched to smoking pipes until she was able to give up smoking entirely in 1972.”
    http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/05/local/me-roemer5

  3. beobrigitte Says:

    It is possible for a person to live a life free from external death threats, such as smoking and drinking and eating unhealthy food. If people obey, then they will live for yonks and yonks, without a termination date applying.

    Prior to the implementation of this there must be a law against producing “chiiiiildren”, simply because they WON’T be our ‘future’, but they will cost quite a lot of money to raise and then, they also eat a lot of food that the immortals will require – otherwise they just can’t sustain their immortality.

    Oh, we already do have a smoking ban, drinking and eating ‘unhealthy’ food is currently “the new smoking”.

    Interesting. Perhaps we need to start mourning the death of common sense and life.

  4. Junican Says:

    My imaginings depend upon the existence of a ‘standard human being’. Failing that, the whole edifice collapses.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: